0

I'd like to verify the correctness of a verbal statement or phrase that I might have heard or read somewhere but I don't have the source anymore.

The context is the conclusion of a duel in the Victorian era, and I believe the phrase "honor is satisfied" can be used by someone with authority to state it aloud for all the participants and witnesses that according to their observation the duel itself was fought properly, and whatever the result is, there is no further need for remaining offended nor ashamed and the matter should be closed.

Example:

Jennings fell to his knees, unable to continue. His wavering hand was barely able to hold the sword. "I yield!" -- he breathed hesitantly.
Lord Yarmouth raised his hand and stepped between the fighters to end the duel. "Honor is satisfied" -- he declared firmly.

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    The expression is fine, but I thought duelling was illegal by the Victorian era?
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 15:30
  • @KateBunting thank you for confirming. Actually I'm working on a steampunk story, so I don't think historical inaccuracy would be a problem. :)
    – Wabbitseason
    Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 15:54
  • @KateBunting The practice was not made illegal in England until 1852, well into the reign of Victoria (1837-1901). Apart from that, boys will be boys, and all too often willing to die on a point of honor. It still happens.
    – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_
    Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 18:12
  • @KateBunting Of course, illegal doesn't mean it never happened, just that the duelers had to evade the law (see Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross)
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 19:21

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

This comes from times of dueling to settle disagreements. If a man insulted another man, he has dishonoured him and is challenged to a swordfight or take back the remark. Since the authority figure has declared the honour to be "satisfied", he is telling the insulted man that he has won the fight and has reclaimed his honour. Had Yarmouth not entered the fight, the other man might have been killed.

Improve this answer
4

Technically, no one in authority is able to state that honor has been satisfied; honor is satisfied only if both duelers agree it has been. Anyone else can attempt to get them to agree (usually a mediator is trying to end a duel by appealing to them regarding the current cultural norms of 'Honor', or because the duelers respect the mediator).

Dueling was made illegal in England, but it was still done anyway in secret. Because it was illegal, no one in authority has the power to stop a duel except by arresting the duelers.

Getting duelers to agree not to duel (prior to the duel) is actually one of the responsibilities of the duelers' 'Seconds', along with setting time, place, and terms (first blood or to the death, type of weapon used) of the duel if they fail in stopping the duel.

In the case of the example quote, I am assuming that the terms were something like 'fight to first blood', or possibly 'until one dueler yields', so 'Lord Yarmouth' is attempting to enforce the agreed terms of the duel on the winner, and he and the seconds might well attempt to restrain the winner if he tries to continue the duel, but if the winner thinks honor has 'not been satisfied', he might attempt another duel at a later time with that opponent.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .